Following a short-term burst of migration activity after the dissolution of the USSR, the current situation is marked by the unusually low population territorial mobility, defined by both the political and, increasingly, the socioeconomic factors. While this trend indicates some degree of minority accommodation, it also demonstrates the depth of economic crisis and increasing socioeconomic differentiation. Visible also is the disproportionate influence exercised by Russia on the formation of migration flows in the region. Remaining the major recipient of migrants, Russia increasingly plays a role of supplier of labor migrants to the West, and acts as a ‘‘bridge’’ for those attempting to reach Western Europe. Meanwhile, Russia still lacks an effective legislative base, institutional mechanisms, and political will for dealing with the new migration flows.
The post-Soviet ethnic migration wave was quickly followed by the contraction of population territorial mobility. The growing role of socioeconomic factors in defining the character and intensity of migration flows, including the expansion of temporary, labor and undocumented migration, has been especially pronounced. These changes indicate the evolving relationship between migration and conflicts developing in Central Eurasia. Initially as an indicator of ethnic tensions and discrimination of minorities, migration is becoming a mechanism of market transition, providing for the economic survival of population under crisis conditions. With the depletion of the number of ethnic Russian migrants, the influx of ethnic aliens, moving primarily from Central Asia and the Transcaucasus to Russia, is increasing in importance. The present paper discusses the impact of new migration flows on the economies, welfare mechanisms, financial systems, labor markets, and societies of Central Eurasia. Special attention is given to the governmental response to migration phenomenon—from labor migration criminalization to attempts to stimulate the flow of specific migrant groups.
The paper analyzes the scale and dynamics of the Russian brain drain, one of the most politicized and hotly debated aspects of the post-Soviet migration. The major issues under consideration include the durability of the intellectual migration flow, its structural characteristics, and territorial orientation. Relying on the Russian State Committee on Statistics data, the research indicates that the real scale of intellectual migration is significantly smaller than is usually expected, even though in some regions and particular fields of Basic Sciences, including Mathematics, Physics, Biology, and Chemistry, and a limited number of research centers, brain drain has indeed acquired a magnitude threatening the existence of the established academic schools. At the same time, huge disparities in terms of the ability of specialists from different branches of science to find adequate jobs abroad are evident. Many academic subfields, including Humanities and Social Sciences, and most of the Russian regions show extremely low levels of intellectual migration and engagement in the international academic exchanges. The result is the practical exclusion of many branches of science and the majority of the Russian regions from the international academic system. Hence the goal of the Russian policy should be not limiting the intellectualmigration, but rather capitalizing on such of its positive aspects as the establishment of long term international academic contacts and the formation of the Russian elite diasporas abroad, actively engaged in cooperationwith the RF academic institutions. Of special interest for the authors are the recent attempts by the RF leadership to encourage the return of the Russian academics. The authors conclude that a more effective policy could be based on the use of diverse forms of cooperationwith the Russian academics abroad, both with or without their permanent relocation to the country, providing for the inclusion of the Russian science into the international academic networks.
This article is a further contribution to the discourse of ethnic ‘diffusion’ in European countries. The debate started on the pages of the Baltic Region journal by three authors — Yu. N. Gladky, I. Yu. Gladky, and K. Yu. Eidemiller [4]. We assume that Europe has been a major centre of attraction for immigrants in recent decades and a site for the rapid emergence of ethnic communities. Unlike Muslim immigration, a product of the Arab Spring and often a measure of last resort, Chinese immigration is a result of a certain convergence between the ideologies of the host countries, committed to multiculturalism, and the country of origin pursuing a ‘go global’ policy. We chose the EU countries as a ‘demonstration site’ and the Chinese diaspora as the object of research. Our aim is to describe the process of migration from China and the formation of a Chinese diaspora in European countries. We analyse the timeline and the scope of Chinese immigration, qualitative changes in the composition of immigrants, factors affecting the choice of the country of entry, and the quantitative parameters and settlement patterns of today’s Chinese diaspora in the region. We suggest grouping the EU Countries by the number and ‘age’ of their Chinese diasporas. We consider ethnic ‘diffusion’ as part of the ‘European project’ within Beijing’s global strategy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.